Yeah, basically what I was saying is that the last spot is open depending on how I feel on the day. The point is that bodyline did happen and it has pushed him to being around ATG level, but whether he deserves a spot in a world XI is way more debatable than some care to believe.

Some days I'll lean towards a more consistently-strong bowler, but on others I'd go for a more enigmatic bowler.

I wasn't saying he isn't ATGXI level, just that I do see where you're coming from.

@CowsCorner - 202 followers and counting!

Disclaimer: I am a biased South African. Anything I say is likely to have something in it that ultimately favours the Proteas.

Recognition of Property Rights in material objects is the recognition of a manís right to exist; his right to pursue his own goals in his own manner at his own discretion with what is rightfully his to command. Just as the Right to Life is the right to the property of oneís own person, so the right to own material products is the right to sustain oneís life and to keep the results of oneís own efforts.

Bradman rates Morris and Richards as the best openers ever, do you accept his word for that as well?

I accept his rationale behind selecting them. He saw Barry Richards play plenty of FC cricket at South Aust, and he made some big innings against a WA bowling attack of the calibre of Lillee and McKenzie. He selected Barry Richards on the basis of needing to score quickly enough to bowl the opponents out twice. Morris was also a fluent scorer, and he was adamant on having a L/R opening combo. There aren't a heap of great LH openers: Morris, Lawry, Fredericks, Langer, Hayden. Morris had some brilliant series under Bradman's leadership, his first three series he averaged 72, 52 and 87 (Invinsibles tour).

Opportunity cost. By selecting say, Tallon ahead of Gilchrist, you lose ~30 runs but gain some wicketkeeping ability. By selecting Gilchrist, the converse is true.

Given wicketkeeping is impossible to analyse by statistics, but rather intuition and through player, official and fan accounts, the balance may be slightly skewed towards runs. By that I mean in the event of two wicketkeepers, and with very little evidence suggesting a large differential in wicketkeeping ability (say, Godfrey Evans vs Alan Knott; or Tallon vs Gilchrist), the selector leans towards the better batsman.

Gilchrist probably isn't an ideal example, since his average is so far ahead of anyone else's, and his wicketkeeping was pretty damn good overall (IMO, very little would separate him from Tallon in realistic terms - Gilchrist rarely dropped anything off ATG bowlers like McGrath and Warne). However, I think it is a no-brainer in the end; for a small differential in wicketkeeping ability, you get three times the Test batsman compared to Tallon.

The thing is, how can we categorically state that Tallon was that far superior with the gloves to Gilchrist? We can't - just like I can't categorically prove Larwood > all, or that Bradman truly was twice the batsman of anyone else in existence. We take estimations, we use the evidence available, we make judgements, we come to our own conclusions. Mine is that Gilchrist's batting (+30 runs an innings compared to Tallon) compensates for the slight drop off in wicketkeeping skill you get with him. And, I like to think, this is the mainstream view most hold; Gilchrist's batting was that exceptional that you accept slightly inferior wicketkeeping.

And ****, by slightly inferior we're still talking about fantastic glovework. He wasn't Kamran bloody Akmal behind the sticks.

I can't speak about Larwood but I can speak about both Tallon and Bradman having seen them play.I can categorically state Tallon was a far superior gloveman to Gilchrist and Bradman was twice the batsman of anyone I have ever seen play the game.When you are using the term"ATG" the first two picked should be those two.